| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Google, Samsung to launch 10", 2560x1600 tablet |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-21 15:11:06 |
| The Next Web: "Google has also been working with Samsung to launch a 10-inch tablet, confirming leaks which suggested Google had teamed up with the Korean manufacturer for another device. Our source tells us that internally the tablet goes under the name 'Codename Manta', runs Google's new Android 4.2 operating system (previously referred to as Key Lime Pie, but is set to retain the Jelly Bean branding), and will offer a 2560x1600 pixel (10:16) resolution, which we believe will offer around 300 pixels per inch compared to the new iPad's 264 PPI." Between the iPad and this supposed Android tablet... Poor Surface. Poor, poor Surface. |
|
| RE: Why the focus on screen resolution? |
| By UltraZelda64 on 2012-10-21 17:53:02 |
|
> Why do people and companies focus so hard on resolution? Everyone keeps masturbating to ever higher pixel counts while all the other features -- both in software and in hardware -- are ignored. It's quite simple, really. Higher pixel counts basically translates to higher res screens which allows the display of higher quality boobs. And that is something that can be worth masturbating over. I guess the problem occurs when people masturbate over the thought of such a screen, without any porn on the screen in front of them. |
 - Score: 10 |
| RE: Only in OSNews bizarro land |
| By some1 on 2012-10-21 18:01:50 |
| No version of Windows was ever successful in this category either, and Microsoft was never even a tablet vendor before. So yes, they need all the luck they can get. |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE[2]: Why the focus on screen resolution? |
| By WereCatf on 2012-10-21 18:04:27 |
|
> Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors. Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room. Alas, colour gamut, contrast and brightness affect readability much more than the occasional bump in PPI at these resolutions. You can cram 20 000 x 20 000 pixels in the screen if you want but it won't be readable and it will definitely cause eye strain if colours, contrast and brightness are subpar, ie. high pixel count is not a substitute for those. That's exactly why I am asking: why masturbate to high pixel count when concentrating on the other aspects is much more beneficial after a certain point? > This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years... I have to say that I disagree. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Why the focus on screen resolution? |
| By ssokolow on 2012-10-21 19:24:36 |
|
I'd probably choose Pixel Qi over e-Ink. That way, I get all the benefits of an LCD (response time, integrated night-time lighting, color), but I get battery lifetimes in the same ballpark as e-Ink if I shut the backlight off and I've also heard they're working on models that stay color when you switch off the backlight. (From my experiments with my Sony Reader PRS-505 and my OpenPandora, I'm inclined to believe Pixel Qi's claim that repeatedly changing the page displayed on an e-Ink screen is as electrically expensive as just using an efficient LCD with the backlight turned completely off) |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Re: |
| By Nelson on 2012-10-21 19:33:57 |
| Uh no, sorry. In real world use, Jelly Bean is still slow. |
| - Score: -1 |
| RE[3]: Why the focus on screen resolution? |
| By kholinar on 2012-10-21 19:35:13 |
| Apple hasn't. The print industry has. This is what every electronic display seeks to emulate. As they should. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Only in OSNews bizarro land |
| By Nelson on 2012-10-21 19:38:34 |
|
> It was shot down because you're talking nonsense. You don't grow to 70% market share by being shit - and remember, no carrier pushing or exclusives here. People CHOOSE Android, as APPLE's own research even confirmed. No. People now choose Android because it has a self sustaining dominance. Just like people choose Windows because it is dominant. However when you turn the clock back to the early days of Android, the picture is different. Carriers needed an anti-Iphone and Android was the only OS to address that need. Android is actively pushed to consumers at the retail channel. Saying it is not is pure ignorance. Walk into an Operator store in the US and you'll see that customers are steered towards Android devices. That decision is made for them. |
| - Score: -1 |
| RE[2]: Only in OSNews bizarro land |
| By Nelson on 2012-10-21 19:40:32 |
|
True. They need good luck, but Android doesn't necessarily present bad luck for Surface. The same vacuum that existed in the phone space when Android was launched, exists now in the tablet space for Windows 8/RT. It is the perfect storm for Microsoft. I will bet that a year from now, Microsoft will have a significant hold of the tablet market. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Only in OSNews bizarro land |
| By some1 on 2012-10-21 19:49:05 |
| OK, I can take the other side. How much do you want to bet and how do you define "significant"? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Why the focus on screen resolution? |
| By kholinar on 2012-10-21 19:51:09 |
|
> Alas, colour gamut, contrast and brightness affect readability much more than the occasional bump in PPI at these resolutions. You can cram 20 000 x 20 000 pixels in the screen if you want but it won't be readable and it will definitely cause eye strain if colours, contrast and brightness are subpar, ie. high pixel count is not a substitute for those. That's exactly why I am asking: why masturbate to high pixel count when concentrating on the other aspects is much more beneficial after a certain point? Color gamut is only an issue if the developer chooses a bad color scheme if where reading is concerned. And color gamut is a real push as evidenced by the iPhone 5. 20000 x 20000 might be just as terrible if the device was powered off, but I haven't encountered an issue with brightness and contrast in the last four years. Whereas there are tons of sub-200 ppi displays that make small text unreadable. There's a reason why fonts have glyphs. Anytime they aren't print quality it's problematic. > I have to disagree I'm glad to hear that there are people who were fine with twenty-some inch displays never passing 2000 a pixel width. I don't know why printers ever bothered. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |